memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Ten Forward/Archive 2004
nl:Memory Alpha:Ten Forward de:Memory Alpha:Zehn Vorne MP3 versus OGG I'm raising this issue because it's come up on Talk:Yesterday's Enterprise. The problem is which format to use for sound bytes that are stored on Memory Alpha. The MP3 format is much more common, but it is encumbered by patent issues that make it a non-free format. The Ogg Vorbis (OGG) format, on the other hand, is completely open and free, but it's much less well known. Personally, I couldn't care less about patent issues. Although it would be nice to be able to stick to the OGG format and remain a truly "free" reference source, I believe it's impractical at the present time to force everyone to use that format, especially considering the state of browser support for it (or the complete lack thereof). Using MP3's would be much more straightforward, IMO. -- Dan Carlson 14:59, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) :There's also the matter of size constraints. The clip I uploaded yesterday, I also have in MP3 format. It is twice the size for about the same quality level. I went with OGG because that was the format agreed to on Wikipedia, and their arguments made sense. But, if you want, I can go back and put them in as MP3s. -- Michael Warren 16:26, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) Well, don't change it just yet. Let's get some input first. (Also, I didn't realize that OGG had such good compression rates!) -- Dan Carlson 16:34, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::I can't open .OGG files with either Real One Player or Windows Media Player. Ottens 17:26, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) There are some plugins available for the OGG format — for WMP, use http://tobias.everwicked.com/, and for QuickTime, use http://qtcomponents.sourceforge.net/. -- Dan Carlson 17:58, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) Perhaps I could/should do a better job summarizing the opposing viewpoints as they've been expressed on Wikipedia. The supporters of Ogg Vorbis point out that the MP3 encoder is patented and someone has to pay for the license to use that encoder or decoder. That means that any content contained in MP3 format is essentially NOT free, and therefore contradicts the purest sense of Wikipedia as a free (open-content) encyclopedia. The same could be argued to apply to Memory Alpha as an open-content Trek reference source. Supporters of the MP3 format argue that OGG is still so obscure that it makes listening to OGG-encoded sounds difficult at best. They claim that the MP3 format is so widespread that it's essentially free for individual use anyway. So, on top of the issue of ease of listening to clips, we're also stuck with the question of whether sounds in MP3 format are actually free or not. Despite the official policy, it seems that even Wikipedia hasn't quite answered this question yet. -- Dan Carlson 18:27, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::: What I'd like to now is who holds the patent on MP3. Microsoft? -- Redge 16:37, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST) No, Microsoft holds the copyright on the WMA/WMV file formats for their Windows Media Player. I forget who holds the patents for MP3... the Wikipedia:MP3 article states both Thompson Institute and something called Fraunhofer. -- Dan Carlson 19:21, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::: Some german Fraunhofer Institute invented MP3 during mid 1990's. Regarding the licensing, this only affects software which converts to MP3 or plays MP3. Simple storing MP3 won't be licensed – at least not to Thomson or Fraunhofer. Besides this I would rather give OGG a chance because it's better in important key features. -- Florian K 00:00, 17 Jun 2004 (CEST) Any other questions/arguments can be given here. Final Vote MP3 vs. OGG * Support OGG -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) ---- Paragraph end references I wish people would pay more attention to in-line references... They make an article so much beter te read. With in-line references, you can determine where info came from and if you're interested, you can take a look at the episode the info was derived from. People seem to be increasingly ignoring this style. Some people still add references to their articles, but they are at the end and there is no way to determine (as a reader) where all the information came from. Like every good scientific papaer, I think our articles should also adhere to the necessity of in-line references! -- Redge 21:52, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Really? I personally find inline references ruin the flow of an article, intruding into the POV, so I don't want to include them unless necessary or suitable (eg, at the end of a paragraph or section as a whole, not midway through.) -- Michael Warren 22:54, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Pardon me, that's what I meant. At the end of the paragraph, instead of all at the end of the article (or end of section if all info came from one source). -- Redge 23:06, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST) Perhaps we could feature the rule that people are supposed to add references to their articles (paragraph-end or articleend), so people can determine the source for the information, a bit better. Maybe people are unaware of the rule, since it not as implicit as canon-policy etc.. I see more and more increasingly that they are being left out of articles, mostly by unregistered or new members. -- Redge 12:02, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Sometimes, I just don't know from which episode or movie something is, so I think it's too much asked to demand references to be added. Of course, references are always fine... Ottens 12:43, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::I don't think they should be demanded right away, but after several members have viewed and reviewed the page, and especially in pages that are nominated for featured, you should expect to find references. It is given as a point in the perfect article as well. A good article is well-documented. -- Redge 13:43, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::: Remember also that perfection is not required. IMO, while I would definitely prefer that all articles be given references from the very beginning, I don't believe it's an absolute requirement. It's just something that needs to be added in later on by copyediting members. (I know, sometimes it's difficult to get used to the incompleteness of the wiki system...) -- Dan Carlson 15:27, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::I don't think it should be made mandatory, but the suggestion that it is a good addition should be featured a bit more obvious. -- Redge 11:33, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST) On the same subject: We have a toolbar atop the editing box which can be used for italics, bold, link, etc.. Could we include Reference there as well? For example, the text that would appear in the copy box could be: ( Series: "Episode"). -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) Also, a button producing the text: [[USS Name|USS Name]] would greatly increase efficiency, as Seven would put it. Notes The Excelsior class articles has a lot of notes. Currently they are given in-line, indented and italicized. I think that this clutters up the page in a most obtrusive way. I think it shouldn't be to difficult to come up with a notes system that is both easy to access and non-obtrusive. I suggested this format, but Michael correctly commented that this would not be easy to access for people who want to read these notes. I later discovered, by the way, that they can be easily read by simple clicking the note link, reading the note, and hitting your browser's back button. But if anyone can come up with a better ystem, I would welcome the suggeston. -- Redge 13:49, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I like that, but it's easier to just put the notes all on the bottom of the page, along with References and Background Information. See Defiant class. Ottens 15:12, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :: I strongly feel that the inline notes should be kept the way they are in the Excelsior article. The main reason for this is because we want to keep things as simple as possible. So what if it's a little more obtrusive? It's still the most straightforward way of doing notes, and that's what wikis are about -- simplicity. -- Dan Carlson 15:27, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::: I may add, that I first didn't notice that all the notes (which I usually prefer over the content itself) were tiny little numbers. So I would include the notes in main body of the text again. However alternativly one can use another system of applying notes: 1 but I don't know how that might conflict with wikilinks -- Kobi 19:59, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::: I can see that. How about the system I use, but in stead of superscript notes we use 1? -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) :I've made an attempt at this system here. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 12:57, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::I think for an article with so many reference links, it's a good idea. Though normally, I would prefer inline references Ottens 13:50, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::I don't like it - in my opinion, it is much more 'obtrusive' than having inline notes. I can read those together with the main text, but at the same time it is simple to ignore everything that is indented/italicized. Using footnotes, I either have to click and scroll back all the time, or try to remember the context of each footnote. -- Cid Highwind 00:49, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::If you look closer you'll see there are several methods of reading the notes without scrolling. You can use your browsers 'back' button, or you can click on the corresponding link in the Notes section, which takes you back to where you were reading. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 11:51, 5 Sep 2004 (CEST) Copyright of actor images I guess the copyright of most of these images (one recent example: Image:Malcolm McDowell.jpg) does not belong to Paramount, but to some other organization/agency/whatever... Does someone know more about this? If I'm guessing correctly, the copyright disclaimer on those pages needs to be checked/changed. -- Cid Highwind 13:35, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST) Also, do we really need/want to have separate 'actor images', or would it suffice to re-use the character image? -- Cid Highwind 13:38, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST) :In some cases, I don't think a seperate actor image is necessary. However, often the actors looks different (older) then their played characters. See, for example Nichelle Nichols. Also, actors could have had multiple appearences/looks on Trek, so an actor image is often useful. Ottens 13:39, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::I think that maybe we should try to use a rule of thumb of only including actor images from performers who are obscured by makeup, or appear drastically different off the set in some way. I've been flabbergasted by the continuous influx of images to this site lately, I'm anticipating that there is going to be a lot of unnecessary images to delete based on the mass uploads i've been observing. --Captain Mike K. Bartel ::Hmm... perhaps we should only include images of actors if they just look different from their first appearence on Star Trek. See William Shatner, for example. Though I would hate to remove Marina Sirtis's image. :P Ottens 16:12, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST) :::I think we should have a few rules of thumb. *''main series'' cast members and regular recurring cast members - yes *actors who are completely obscured by makeup - yes *''celebrities'' who did a cameo - yes *less than regular recurring characters & guest stars - no :::Still, take care with these images. I think many of these actor images don't have as much relevance, as say, a still from a Trek production, and therefore should not be uploaded as large size pictures for enlarging. 200px will do fine for most all of these shots, especially since they are from non-paramount sources and presenting large gallery images is not our bag, baby -- Captain Mike K. Bartel I agree with Mike's suggestion, because I think actors will allways look different out of character, make-up or not. In a sense they are two different persons. I know we have to watch our memory, but I think in this case an exception is warranted. -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) :So, this is our final judgement? ;) *''main series'' cast members and regular recurring cast members - yes *actors who are completely obscured by makeup - yes *''celebrities'' who did a cameo - yes *less than regular recurring characters & guest stars - no I would go for that. Ottens 14:34, 31 Jul 2004 (CEST) It's setled then? Maybe this ruling could be added to policy somewhere? -- Redge 19:04, 5 Aug 2004 (CEST) Race vs. Species Both terms are used regularly on MA - should we try to concentrate on one of them? The term race (IMO) is incorrect and has a rather negative connotation, so I'd prefer to use species instead. What do you think? -- Cid Highwind 16:55, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST) *Support "species," for all reasons listed. perhaps a policy in our writing area? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel *I agree. The appropriate term should be mentioned in the relevant policies. -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) Characters without names Should we define a naming convention for characters without names. As we research more and more, we find things like recurring extras or even speaking roles of characters who were not canonically named, in dialogue nor in script. could we do *USS Voyager chief medical officer or something of the like, or deny him his own article and leave him in some other article's body.. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 07:54, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST) On this matter, I highly disagree with the title Future guy. Sounds very cheesy to me. -- Redge 11:33, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST) :I've done a couple articles on nameless characters: Xindi-Primate councilor and the like. It should probably depend on how much info there is on an unnamed character; USS Voyager chief medical officer works for me. :As far as Future Guy goes, I've never liked that term for MA, since it doesn't seem to be in-universe like this site puports to me. Usually when I reference him in articles I use the term Suliban benefactor, sometimes Silik's master from the future. --Steve 15:55, 19 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::I believe the name Future Guy (or Futureguy) is used in the scripts. Not canon, I know, but these fan names for characters in Sci-Fi shows often get used on screen eventually. Alex Peckover 14:56, Jul 21, 2004 (CEST) Maybe there is no generic policie, but the appropriate title should be discussed here. If the article in question is already written, it should be moved. For the doctor: I can abide with USS Voyager chief medical officer (Joe alternatively). For the man from the future: Suliban benefactor sounds like a very good idea to me. -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::Well, i tried USS Excelsior communications officer as an article title but it was awkward. Now, all unnamed characters from Excelsior are listed and have articles about them in List of USS Excelsior personnel. ::I propose, for unnamed characters, they are sorted first by species or allegiance, then by organization, then by ship or assignment. The general "species" link uses the word characters, an "organization" has personnel *List of (species) characters and.. *List of (organization) personnel **these lists will have unnamed characters of other species and allegiances. The unnamed Klingon Commander is listed and referenced in List of Klingon characters. If this article got too large i would separate the characters within it by allegiance, so List of Klingon characters would provide links to.. *** List of Klingon Defense Force personnel (leaving non-KDF independnat Klingon characters in the parent article, or in severe cases, subdivided further into articles like.. ****List of Klingon Intelligence personnel ****List of IKS Bortas personnel ::(I personally don't think there are enough Klingon characters to fill these lists, however this model will probably have to be used for Starfleet characters). All unnamed will be listed in List of unnamed characters. The purpose of List of unnamed characters is to illustrate where each unnamed characters article space is, and link to that list. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:36, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST) Content Copyright I have the StarTrek TNG Interactive Technical Manual from the NCC-1701-D on CD. Some parts of this manual consist of technical data with concern to equipment etc.... May I copy parts of those technical data, which are relevant, and use them in Memory-alpha if I use a cite ? Such as 'Source of information - StarTrek TNG blabla..' or may I only use that data if I rewrite those articles, and then how close may the rewriten articles look like the original ? Q 15:34, 30 Jul 2004 (CEST) :According to our copyright policy, you should rewrite the information; otherwise it's a copyright infringment. Ottens 11:02, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) :: Yes I know that the information should be rewritten, whenever I use parts of it I do that, but I am not sure if the facts contained in the techmanuals may be used. Also because the canon of techmanuals is under discussion. I think that when it is neccesary to use facts I use them and if someone does not agree they hopefully will let me know Q 18:18, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) Wiki Tables I can't get the hang of the wiki tables format. This is mainly because I have to learn by experience, experimenting and seeing what others have done. Is there an article on MA explaining the workings of this format? If not, one should be created asap. -- Redge 18:58, 5 Aug 2004 (CEST) :Memory Alpha:Table markup. -- Michael Warren 19:00, 5 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::Thank you. -- Redge 19:09, 5 Aug 2004 (CEST) Interior Design On several of the starship pages I've expanded (Intrepid class, Sovereign class, USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), but most importantly Galaxy class), there is a considerably ammount of "Interior Design" information available. I think it would be a good idea to create separate pages for these - like we have a seperate page for Human History for example - so the articles won't get crouded. It would also create a good Constitution class interior article, on which we can implent the Interior info from USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A). Also, it would allow me to further expand the Galaxy class article with additional historical information, and information on the saucer seperation procedure and onship systems. Ottens 11:57, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST) :It's too bad, since that information clearly belongs in the main body, but you are correct: those pages are getting crouded. Let the casual readers read the class article, and the more fanatic refer to the enterior articles. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 17:01, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::For most starship pages, it is unnecessary. However, Constitution class interior and Galaxy class interior are huge articles on their own already. Ottens 17:11, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST) Memory Alpha Skin For some reason, the old skin I was using - I am using a public computer now, though - is not available anymore. It was the one that looked quite like Star Trek Minutiae's layout. Is it just this computer or a general error/change? Ottens 10:52, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) :Probably has something to do with the apparent upgrade to mediawiki 1.3 -- Redge | ''Talk'' 13:41, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) ::Yes. If you want to keep the old skin, go to Preferences, and select the Classic skin. The new skin is called Monobook. It's nice, but still needs a few tweaks... -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' ::The new Monobook is quite neat, but I think I prefer the previous. The MonoBook looks better, but I think the classic MA skin is more functional. Unfortunately, when I select the "Classic" as skin, I get something different.... Ottens 15:10, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) ::: MinutiaeMan is currently editing the Monobook file, I think we need to be patient... -- Kobi 15:19, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) ::::Could we get some more contrast, please? The Monobook style looks great, but light-blue/white on medium grey is a little hard to read. Thanks... :) -- Cid Highwind 15:30, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) ::::: Yes, we just got upgraded to MediaWiki 1.3 last night, and with it comes a brand-new skin to accommodate all of the new features we've got. I'll be composing a new page to introduce everyone to the new changes and features, but that'll take a little while. Also, please direct all comments about the new skin to MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css. Currently, I'm trying to squash the various bugs and minor deviations in the stylesheet to ensure a consistent look across the entire site. After that, we can discuss changing or altering the style. :-) -- Dan Carlson 15:51, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) Categories I've started a wiki of my own, and noted a feature in the MediaWiki software: Categories. Do we use those on Memory Alpha? And if not, why not? It seems to me a very usefull navigational feature. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 16:00, 29 Aug 2004 (CEST) :Categories were a feature implemented in MediaWiki 1.3, which MA does not (yet) run on. I don't like them. Personally, I see lists and reference tables as much easier and visually clear ways to organise articles. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:24, Aug 29, 2004 (CEST) :: Is this a MA-policy or just regional for MA/en? I'd like to see this feature with the german edition some time. -- Florian K 12:24, 12 Sep 2004 (CEST) Well, now we do. I'm not saying we abandon the lists altogether, which would be s shame to all the work done on them, but I feel the category system is very functional in the sense that you don't have to manually add a new article to all kinds of tables, but simply insert one or more links Category:(Name), and the article is automatically added to the right pages. It's a lot less work and a very good way IMO to navigate. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 17:13, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) : True! IMHO we should use Categories instead of "List of ...". It's an easy way of having episoded, characters, actors, planets and all kind of trek and meta-trek both listed and separated. As easy are sub-categories, let's say for "DS9-Episodes", "TNG-Episodes",... being a category within "Episodes". I'm looking forward to MediaWiki 1.3.x for MA-de. ;) (Please also notice the far more developed markup for images, btw!) -- Florian K 19:07, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) Clarification Currently, the categories system is disabled on Memory Alpha (at least on the English version, I haven't checked the others). We did this to allow everyone to discuss a category tree and have a firm plan before we enabled the system, in order to avoid creating a hodgepodge of categories like Wikipedia has. We've already got a basic outline present at Memory Alpha talk:Category tree, so I'd suggest that everyone drop by that discussion and add their own two cents on the issue! As soon as we've got a good idea of the basic makeup of the categories, we'll enable them and let everyone start categorizing the pages. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 13:46, Sep 12, 2004 (CEST) Using External Scientific Documents Since there are now several groups out there researching warp drive and other concepts, it would behoove this forum to be careful on what is does and does not permit. For instance I post regularly on the Yahoo Group Stardrive1 hosted by Physicist Dr. Paul Hoiland. This group often refers to genuine scientific papers from http://www.arxiv.org a publication of the Los Alamos scientific community and supported by the United States Government. Athought they have NOT formally reviewed anything near a "subspace theory" paper, Dr. Hoiland is sensitive to our concerns, and being a trekker himself..has pet theories on that subject. Please email him at: Paultrr2000@yahoo.com for a serious discussion on Subspace Theory, Advanced Warp Drive concepts or other issues where you DO need a mathematical paper or something. I have set up catagories for this in the Subspace Theory area, and could include recent Physical and Metaphysical discussions for linkage. I do NOT intend to post a valid research document here, but IF you guys have one..please send a copy to Dr. Hoiland. He may help you get it published..or perhaps Fernando might. Dr. Fernando Loup is a friend of Miquel Alcubierre's and has published several scientific papers on warp and FTL (faster than light) theory. I went and checked Arxiv.org, there are now at least 22 documents listed under "warp drive". In order to retrieve one you need the Adobe Reader to read a .pdf file. Then at the website, click on "Form Interface", then select "gr-qc" in the box marked Archive. At line #4 then select "Abstract" and enter "warp drive" in the box (also select 'all years'). Remember the term "warp" can also refer to concepts in Manifold Geometry Theory. : WMS, welcome to Memory Alpha! However, please understand that your usual MO is not welcome here -- we're not interested in any sort of supposed "real life" pseudoscientific research at Memory Alpha; this database is about the fictional Star Trek television and movie series. The two are nothing alike. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 22:27, Sep 3, 2004 (CEST) Enterprise J (copied from Talk: Enterprise J) I am trying to find an image of the Enterprise J as shown on Enterprise. The Memory Apha listing has a box showing a place for the computer diagram but that is all. Is there any image references of this ship available? -- Richard Baker :No exterior shots were made for the episode. The only view we have of the ship is the one presented here, seen behind the characters as they looked out the corridor window --Captain Mike K. Bartel 05:30, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST) There is now a very large color print available of the exterior of the Enterprise J. It is in the 'Ships of the Line' Calender for Feb 2004. The image is 12"x24" and I can scan it in sections and splice it in photoshop to send to Memory Alpha but I have no idea how to send it or what would be a maximum file size. The image is nice and I will be glad to send it if someone could just tell me where to upload in to. -- Richard Baker ::I have tried to view the referenced image of the Enterprise J and it will not display anything. The only thing I get is a grey box with a text line mentioning that it is a computer graphic display from the show. I could also not get the images from E2 and Twilight to display. This is my first entry into Memory Alpha and I cannot get anything to show except artfully arranged text with a background. I am using WinXP/IE6 with all current patches. What is the trick to get the embedded images to display anything more thtn a grey box with a description? -Richard Baker :Have you tried to click on it? The image should have a page with its own disclaimer and so forth, which also contains a direct link to the image file itself. otherwise, i'm stumped. The image has spread some, perhaps you can find a copy on a different server using http://www.google.com 's image search. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:37, 16 Aug 2004 (CEST) For those who liked the old skin better... This is either a bug or an oversight in the MediaWiki software, but for the time being, I can't restore the old appearance for the "Classic" skin. However, if you do decide that you like the old appearance better (with the blue background and all), then you can set it in your own personal preferences. Copy the contents of MediaWiki:Standard.css to User:USERNAME/standard.css, and you'll be ready to go! -- Dan Carlson | Talk 15:45, Sep 5, 2004 (CEST) Performance Memory-Alpha Since Memory-Alpha is on version 1.3 its performance is 'a hell'. By this I mean it is very hard for me to reach Memory-Alpha at all, if I can reach it simply browsing through Memory-Alpha takes ages. (well for me 30> seconds or more per page but most of the time I get an time-out) Let alone if I try to edit some pages or want to upload an image. this kind of problems really takes the fun out of working with Memory-Alpha. When Memory-Alpha was on the previous version I never experienced the mentioned problems. (and no I don't have these problems with other sites) Changeing browser settings did not resolve my problems (Moz1.6 on Linux). One in while I can reach Memory-Alpha but for howlong I never know. Are there other people who are having the same problems (In the Netherlands where I am or elswhere ) ? -- Q 20:20, 12 Sep 2004 (CEST) : Part of the problem is likely to be the server, which is having some strains under the load as Memory Alpha grows. However, I've not been having consistent problems with the time it takes to load pages -- certainly not thirty seconds or more! I find this puzzling, especially because you're located closer to the server than I am (the server's in Germany, I believe). This sounds like it's mainly a problem with your ISP making connections to the site -- because Harry (who's also from the Netherlands) has been reporting the exact same problems you've just described. : Hope this helps... -- Dan Carlson | Talk 22:22, Sep 12, 2004 (CEST) :: thanks, this indeed helps. I already asked someone who is also a subscriber to my ISP if they could reach Memory-Alpha and they could not. However an hour later I, and someone else could contact Memory-Alpha and I was able to edit some pages. I'll see if and can send an email to Harry to exchange info. (I now that Harry does not use the same ISP as I do). -- Q 18:19, 13 Sep 2004 (CEST) Episode guides The individual episode pages are mostly lacking, but there are a number of rich episode guides on the net. Why not try to persuade the authors of one of them to wikify it here?